XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Murff"  wrote in message   
   news:lkb5n7$42j$1@dont-email.me...   
   > On Tue, 06 May 2014 10:28:28 +1000, Dechucka wrote:   
   >   
   >> "Guy Fawkes"  wrote in message   
   >> news:XnsA324CC6427D82Wereofftoseethewizrd@78.46.70.116...   
   >   
   >>> Because you are trying to lump law abiding gun owners in with   
   >>> murderers.   
   >>   
   >> No I wasn't   
   >   
   > You are, however, arguing along a different axes: you, that of population-   
   > wide statistical effects. Your opponents, that of individual experience.   
   > That difference in itself is a recipe for fruitless talking past one   
   > another.   
   >   
   > On *this* subject the problem is made worse because on the one hand it is   
   > so highly politicised. Even if underlying data is reliable (which is   
   > probably open to question both ways), drawing comparisons between any two   
   > countries is prone to much distortion due to the difficulty of   
   > controlling for social, geographical and economic factors. Politically-   
   > motivated conclusions tend to get drawn very early on.   
   >   
   > It is also the case that the experience of the responsible gun owner is   
   > not actually a blood-soaked massacre of children, innocent bystanders and   
   > suicides. Or even of unfortunates who happen accidentally to find   
   > themselves having wandered into one's home in the wee hours, equipped   
   > with a jemmy and a "how did that get there" expression.   
   >   
   > My personal view is that private firearms ownership is perfectly fine,   
   > either for recreational use or where social norms warrant it, for   
   > personal defence. However such ownership and use carries with it a   
   > responsibility much like that attendant on driving motor vehicles or   
   > flying aircraft. And therefore that private firearms ownership warrants   
   > some form of test to demonstrate competence and suitability.   
      
   In theory I would agree with this. However, there are several issues with   
   such a suggestion in actual practice.   
      
   1) Those opposed to guns have shown their willingness to distort, pervert,   
   modify, alter or otherwise use such mandates to restrict, limit, prohibit   
   firearms ownership even for suitable people right up to imposing de facto   
   bans for everyone. (ref Chicago and Washington DC)   
      
   2) The overwhelming issue of crimes with firearms are NOT from those who   
   legally own and possess firearms, but rather by those who are already   
   prohibited by law from such ownership or possession.   
      
   3) Statistically competence can be shown by the general population of gun   
   owners by referencing the very low and falling accidental gun injury/death   
   numbers and rates.   
      
   4) Tests of competence and suitability do not insure that the person will   
   actually be such, only that they can chose to do so. Otherwise, we would   
   have much less problems with the injury/death rates involving automobiles.   
      
   5) Finally, it provides a mechanism by which the government can chose to   
   eliminate our right to keep and bear whenever it suits them.   
      
   No, the overwhelming issue is one of controlling criminals. Where existing   
   gun control laws are strictly enforced, and punishments for violations   
   actually imposed, criminals are quickly removed from the streets and violent   
   crime rates of all sorts drop significantly.   
   Ref Project Exile and similar programs   
      
   The issue isn't that legal owners are such a problem, but rather we   
   generally refuse to hammer those who are the problem when they are caught   
   misusing a firearm in crime. Very few people are responsible for the bulk of   
   crime involving firearms and those are the people we need to address.   
   Testing the 99.9% that aren't the issue won't impact the 0.1% who are and   
   who most likely will never be tested no matter what the laws are because   
   their ownership/possession of firearms are already illegal under existing   
   laws.   
      
      
   > If there is a problem in the USA it isn't with guns per se, but rather   
   > with the *general* weakness of social pressure toward that sort of   
   > demonstration.   
      
   I disagree. It's more of a general weakness in holding people, particularly   
   repeat offenders, accountable for their actions and imposing a suitable   
   punishment that amounts to more than simple limited condiment which is often   
   far shorter in practice than the law would allow.   
      
      
   >I say "general" because clearly in very many cases   
   > youngsters are brought up with safe and responsible habits. And I say   
   > "weakness" because there is a clear struggle between on the one hand the   
   > gun control movement (NFA in 1934, GCA in 1968 and so on) and on the   
   > other, their opponents. What is lacking is a clear and rationally-   
   > expressed view of what the aim of gun ownership and control ought to be.   
      
   You assume that gun control is actually interested in controlling the   
   criminal misuse of guns.   
      
   I hate to say it but by and large the legislative proposals advanced by gun   
   control advocates, IMO, rarely actually address criminal misuse but rather   
   seeks to either punish those who aren't criminals, or to generally impose   
   restrictions, conditions, etc on even being able to own guns.   
      
      
   > Emerging from this lack, is a lot of nonsensical noise about on the one   
   > hand what are ultimately crime rates, and on the other atavistic claims   
   > to "freedom from government tyranny". ISTM that much crime in the USA   
   > comes down to economic and social deprivation and flawed drugs laws -   
   > much the same sort of thing happens in inner cities here, just on a   
   > smaller scale - and that where guns aren't used, knives are. IalsoSTM   
   > that whilst protection from tyranny may have been a reasonable point just   
   > in case the Founding Fathers got too "British" in their views, if the   
   > modern day US government, with 35% of global defence expenditure, wanted   
   > to be tyrannical, then concealed-carry handguns and AR-15s in pickups   
   > wouldn't do much to stop it.   
      
   Actually, given the size of the respective forces the federal government   
   couldn't impose their will on us unless we chose to allow it.   
      
   Further, you make reference above to economic, social, and even legal   
   issues. I say that if we address the causes of violent crime, then we can   
   address the motivation that leads people to commit violent crime. Couple   
   that with strict, harsh and prolonged punishment for engaging in violent   
   crime and you will stop many criminals from engaging in violent crime.   
      
   I'm thinking long terms of prison involving hard labor, even if it's simply   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)